<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Deo Vindice!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html</link>
	<description>NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 06:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
	
		<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-39096</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-39096</guid>
		<description>Great topic, but I noted a couple of minor historical errors with regard to WWII-era Germany. The belt buckle you show is a German Army accoutrement. The enlisted and NCO ranks of the German Army and Navy had this slogan on their buckles, while the German Air Force belt buckle was without slogan. Hitler once quipped, "I have a Christian Army, an Imperial Navy, and a National-Socialist Air Force." The SS (to include the Waffen SS) slogan was "Mein Ehre heisst Treue", or My Honor is Loyalty.  As previously mentined, SS substituted religion with pagan Norse rituals revolving around racial purity and other nonsense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great topic, but I noted a couple of minor historical errors with regard to WWII-era Germany. The belt buckle you show is a German Army accoutrement. The enlisted and NCO ranks of the German Army and Navy had this slogan on their buckles, while the German Air Force belt buckle was without slogan. Hitler once quipped, "I have a Christian Army, an Imperial Navy, and a National-Socialist Air Force." The SS (to include the Waffen SS) slogan was "Mein Ehre heisst Treue", or My Honor is Loyalty.  As previously mentined, SS substituted religion with pagan Norse rituals revolving around racial purity and other nonsense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Weaver</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38545</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Weaver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38545</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;The North could have prevented that war if they had done so, but technically they had invaded the sovereign Confederate States.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That would be dependent on the Confederacy's claims to have excised themselves from the union actually having legal and moral weight, wouldn't it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The North could have prevented that war if they had done so, but technically they had invaded the sovereign Confederate States.</p></blockquote>
<p>That would be dependent on the Confederacy's claims to have excised themselves from the union actually having legal and moral weight, wouldn't it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mrnaglfar</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38535</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrnaglfar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38535</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;In his "Cornerstone Speech" delivered March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens stated that "Our new Government is founded ... its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro (sic) is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and moral condition.&lt;/i&gt;

Just in case there was any question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>In his "Cornerstone Speech" delivered March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens stated that "Our new Government is founded ... its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro (sic) is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and moral condition.</i></p>
<p>Just in case there was any question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DamienSansBlog</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38515</link>
		<dc:creator>DamienSansBlog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38515</guid>
		<description>I wonder if we're mixing up our ultimate and proximate causes here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if we're mixing up our ultimate and proximate causes here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lpetrich</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38479</link>
		<dc:creator>lpetrich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38479</guid>
		<description>That's a total rewrite of history. The Southern states' leaders made a BIG issue out of protection of slavery, even to the extent of antagonizing many Northerners. Look at their speeches -- full of defenses of slavery -- and what they pushed for, like the Fugitive Slave Act and censorship of anti-slavery writings.

And when the Northern states would not cooperate, the Southern states seceded.

The Southern states are the ones who picked the fight, so they have no right to complain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That's a total rewrite of history. The Southern states' leaders made a BIG issue out of protection of slavery, even to the extent of antagonizing many Northerners. Look at their speeches -- full of defenses of slavery -- and what they pushed for, like the Fugitive Slave Act and censorship of anti-slavery writings.</p>
<p>And when the Northern states would not cooperate, the Southern states seceded.</p>
<p>The Southern states are the ones who picked the fight, so they have no right to complain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james wellington</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38437</link>
		<dc:creator>james wellington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-38437</guid>
		<description>I just want to say that while an indirect cause of the War of Northern Aggression or the Civil War or the War Between the States was slavery, there were many other reasons, some more direct than others. The direct cause of the war was Federal troops did not withdraw from Fort Sumter, a part of Southern South Carolina, thus, in the minds of Confederate leaders, the South had the right to attack. And rightly so they did. As of that point, the United States had not pulled its troops out of Fort Sumter. The North could have prevented that war if they had done so, but technically they had invaded the sovereign Confederate States.

This war was not a war over slavery until Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, and that document, as stated previously, was pointless anyway and Lincoln knew it. The South wasn't going to listen to something an enemy nation ordered. Lincoln did it as a way to further justify the war. And actually, the South wouldn't have succeeded if Lincoln did not accept the presidency. So in actuality Lincoln, who 'would do anything to protect the union' was the reason the union broke up. Also, the southern states, being a nearly 100% agriculturally based economy and culture, did not feel they were being represented properly in the federal legislature, where many more representatives that had constituents in the industrial north. Tariffs, misrepresentation, slaves, northern aggression, state's rights, differing economies, etc.

There's tons of things, but one thing is for certain, it wasn't slavery that caused the Civil War. The North portrayed it as that after support abroad was growing for the South's cause.

Please never ever, ever, say that slavery was the cause. Don't ever say that again, any blind, non-biased historian will tell you that slavery was furthest from the minds of the American people (both north and south).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just want to say that while an indirect cause of the War of Northern Aggression or the Civil War or the War Between the States was slavery, there were many other reasons, some more direct than others. The direct cause of the war was Federal troops did not withdraw from Fort Sumter, a part of Southern South Carolina, thus, in the minds of Confederate leaders, the South had the right to attack. And rightly so they did. As of that point, the United States had not pulled its troops out of Fort Sumter. The North could have prevented that war if they had done so, but technically they had invaded the sovereign Confederate States.</p>
<p>This war was not a war over slavery until Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, and that document, as stated previously, was pointless anyway and Lincoln knew it. The South wasn't going to listen to something an enemy nation ordered. Lincoln did it as a way to further justify the war. And actually, the South wouldn't have succeeded if Lincoln did not accept the presidency. So in actuality Lincoln, who 'would do anything to protect the union' was the reason the union broke up. Also, the southern states, being a nearly 100% agriculturally based economy and culture, did not feel they were being represented properly in the federal legislature, where many more representatives that had constituents in the industrial north. Tariffs, misrepresentation, slaves, northern aggression, state's rights, differing economies, etc.</p>
<p>There's tons of things, but one thing is for certain, it wasn't slavery that caused the Civil War. The North portrayed it as that after support abroad was growing for the South's cause.</p>
<p>Please never ever, ever, say that slavery was the cause. Don't ever say that again, any blind, non-biased historian will tell you that slavery was furthest from the minds of the American people (both north and south).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NightShadeQueen</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-36071</link>
		<dc:creator>NightShadeQueen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 00:02:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-36071</guid>
		<description>Buldozr,

&lt;blockquote&gt; The South was not the only "Slave holding states" in america. The North waited 3 YEARS before the released theres AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Two points I would like to make. First of all, due to the poor soil, slavery was never economically viable in the North, so Northern slaves slowly banned slavery &lt;i&gt;way&lt;/i&gt; before the Civil War. Second: The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves &lt;i&gt;outside&lt;/i&gt; of the Union. In other words, it was a useless document.

&lt;blockquote&gt;The reason the North STARTED that goddamn war was because the south had its own resources, and own way of revenue side of the factories of the north. The south got tired of the Yankee Bullcrap, and decided, "hey,screw yall, we can make our Own Country." &lt;/blockquote&gt; Incorrect. The South left because they thought slavery was a god-given right, and they felt their rights were being tramped. Economically speaking, the North depended on the South and the South depended on the North.

&lt;blockquote&gt;It was Our GOD-GIVEN Right, According to the US. Constitution, and before you go saying, "oh no it was the Slaves! We wanted to free the Slaves! Blah Blah"-STFU! &lt;/blockquote&gt;
Quite in all honesty, the North didn’t go to war to free the slaves. Instead, it went to war to unite the Union, because otherwise both countries would have fallen. It only claimed it was fighting slavery so England wouldn’t join the south.

&lt;blockquote&gt;You will STFU Because The South did NOT treat its slaves as Badly as history books and all of the reports say it did. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Sure, I’ll speak up. (Bet you didn’t know that the ‘s’ can be translated as both “speak” and “shut”.) But in this case, you’re partially right. Most slaveowners didn’t treat their slaves harshly. However, there were slaves that were treated inhumanely.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Anytime a Black man or woman was killed, they Usually Deserved it, and guess what again?&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I’d have to disagree on this one. The KKK murdered and tortured a lot of innocent people. 

&lt;blockquote&gt;The KKK Was usually NOT the people to do it. The blacks Killed there own, and the only time anyone was killed was when they were so damn sorry that they wouldnt get out and work or at least try to help. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Give me proof. I spent the last &lt;i&gt;two months&lt;/i&gt; studying the Civil War for a contest, and nothing about black people killing their own came up.

&lt;blockquote&gt;The white people did NOT treat there slaves the way they are told out to be, and the Slave Holders Usually slept with the slaves. &lt;/blockquote&gt;
Er, what did you mean? I accept that most slaves slept in similar buildings/beds as their masters did, but usually not under the same roof.

&lt;blockquote&gt;So dont try to sell me on that Slave-State Bullshit,ok? Aight,good. &lt;/blockquote&gt; As long as you don’t try to sell me on the white supremacy BS.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Deo Vindice does mean God is Our Vindicator, Because he was, and still is today. Just because we lost then doesnt mean we will lose again. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Funny. Last time I checked, the guys with the bigger guns won. But, then again, if &lt;a&gt;iron chariots could stop god.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Buldozr,</p>
<blockquote><p> The South was not the only "Slave holding states" in america. The North waited 3 YEARS before the released theres AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation. </p></blockquote>
<p>Two points I would like to make. First of all, due to the poor soil, slavery was never economically viable in the North, so Northern slaves slowly banned slavery <i>way</i> before the Civil War. Second: The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves <i>outside</i> of the Union. In other words, it was a useless document.</p>
<blockquote><p>The reason the North STARTED that goddamn war was because the south had its own resources, and own way of revenue side of the factories of the north. The south got tired of the Yankee Bullcrap, and decided, "hey,screw yall, we can make our Own Country." </p></blockquote>
<p> Incorrect. The South left because they thought slavery was a god-given right, and they felt their rights were being tramped. Economically speaking, the North depended on the South and the South depended on the North.</p>
<blockquote><p>It was Our GOD-GIVEN Right, According to the US. Constitution, and before you go saying, "oh no it was the Slaves! We wanted to free the Slaves! Blah Blah"-STFU! </p></blockquote>
<p>Quite in all honesty, the North didn’t go to war to free the slaves. Instead, it went to war to unite the Union, because otherwise both countries would have fallen. It only claimed it was fighting slavery so England wouldn’t join the south.</p>
<blockquote><p>You will STFU Because The South did NOT treat its slaves as Badly as history books and all of the reports say it did. </p></blockquote>
<p>Sure, I’ll speak up. (Bet you didn’t know that the ‘s’ can be translated as both “speak” and “shut”.) But in this case, you’re partially right. Most slaveowners didn’t treat their slaves harshly. However, there were slaves that were treated inhumanely.</p>
<blockquote><p>Anytime a Black man or woman was killed, they Usually Deserved it, and guess what again?</p></blockquote>
<p>I’d have to disagree on this one. The KKK murdered and tortured a lot of innocent people. </p>
<blockquote><p>The KKK Was usually NOT the people to do it. The blacks Killed there own, and the only time anyone was killed was when they were so damn sorry that they wouldnt get out and work or at least try to help. </p></blockquote>
<p>Give me proof. I spent the last <i>two months</i> studying the Civil War for a contest, and nothing about black people killing their own came up.</p>
<blockquote><p>The white people did NOT treat there slaves the way they are told out to be, and the Slave Holders Usually slept with the slaves. </p></blockquote>
<p>Er, what did you mean? I accept that most slaves slept in similar buildings/beds as their masters did, but usually not under the same roof.</p>
<blockquote><p>So dont try to sell me on that Slave-State Bullshit,ok? Aight,good. </p></blockquote>
<p> As long as you don’t try to sell me on the white supremacy BS.</p>
<blockquote><p>Deo Vindice does mean God is Our Vindicator, Because he was, and still is today. Just because we lost then doesnt mean we will lose again. </p></blockquote>
<p>Funny. Last time I checked, the guys with the bigger guns won. But, then again, if <a>iron chariots could stop god.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NgeliMwenu</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-36031</link>
		<dc:creator>NgeliMwenu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 05:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-36031</guid>
		<description>I spotted a small bug: In the German text, 'mit' (with) is written with just one t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I spotted a small bug: In the German text, 'mit' (with) is written with just one t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Weaver</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-33715</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Weaver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:55:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-33715</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Aight,first off,let me set you straight.
[demonstrably contrafactual crapola]&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Evidence, plzthx.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Aight,first off,let me set you straight.<br />
[demonstrably contrafactual crapola]</p></blockquote>
<p>Evidence, plzthx.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ebonmuse</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-33714</link>
		<dc:creator>Ebonmuse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:53:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/deo-vindice.html#comment-33714</guid>
		<description>I've approved the previous comment as evidence that there are people who still hold the views discussed in this post. The author is already banned, so you needn't bother to reply.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I've approved the previous comment as evidence that there are people who still hold the views discussed in this post. The author is already banned, so you needn't bother to reply.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
